Adam Shamed and Killed (“crucified”) by a Tree

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Equivocating a Jewish sect living in Palestine 2,200 years ago with Joseph Smith is absurd. That has got to be the weakest dodge I have ever seen on CARM.
Rotfl... excuse me, but there were always the influence of idolatry, Hellenism, foreign cultures, etc., and we don't consider those legitimate.

Do you accept that Paul was the man of lies lies talked about in the Qumran docs?

So, why don't you consider the JWs, Mormons, Moonies, RCC, SDAs, etc., legitimate when they use the same NT as you do? Why are you dodging this?
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
Rotfl... excuse me, but there were always the influence of idolatry, Hellenism, foreign cultures, etc., and we don't consider those legitimate.

Do you accept that Paul was the man of lies lies talked about in the Qumran docs?

So, why don't you consider the JWs, Mormons, Moonies, RCC, SDAs, etc., legitimate when they use the same NT as you do? Why are you dodging this?
You really have no idea what is in the Dead Sea Scrolls, do you? As far as you are concerned they could have been written by Joseph Smith.

Why don’t you spend a little time learning something about Jewish history? The Dead Sea Scrolls just happen to be the greatest archaeological find in the entire history of the Hebrew people.

In answer to your question, I refer you to Wise, an expert on the DSC.

”As for the Man of Lie, it appears from a close reading of the sources that he was probably the head of the Pharisaic party. Rabbinic sources preserve the name of a prominent Phariseeic leader of the first century B.C., a man noted both for his violence and for his success in winning approval for his views: Shimon ben Shetah...From the Pharisaic perspective, the era was remembered as that of “Shimeon ben Shetah and Queen Salome,” …We are not the first to propose equating Ben Shetah with the Man of Lie; FF Bruce argued the possibility as early as 1956.”. (Wise, A new Translation, the Dead Sea Scrills, pg 31)
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
You really have no idea what is in the Dead Sea Scrolls, do you? As far as you are concerned they could have been written by Joseph Smith.
Well, he did use Golden plates.

Why don’t you spend a little time learning something about Jewish history? The Dead Sea Scrolls just happen to be the greatest archaeological find in the entire history of the Hebrew people.
Why can't you defend your point?

In answer to your question, I refer you to Wise, an expert on the DSC.

”As for the Man of Lie, it appears from a close reading of the sources that he was probably the head of the Pharisaic party. Rabbinic sources preserve the name of a prominent Phariseeic leader of the first century B.C., a man noted both for his violence and for his success in winning approval for his views: Shimon ben Shetah...From the Pharisaic perspective, the era was remembered as that of “Shimeon ben Shetah and Queen Salome,” …We are not the first to propose equating Ben Shetah with the Man of Lie; FF Bruce arfued the possibility as early as 1956.”. (Wise, A new Translation, the Dead Sea Scrills, pg 31)
But Paul said he was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee of Pharisees. Quite a boast from an apostate. Man of lies and lawlessness fits him perfectly. If you check Eusebius EH, you'll see the Jewish sects of the time saw Paul as an apostate and his writings worthless. They also saw Jesus as a mere human. Quite a cover-up by the Church today.

Shimon Ben Shetah is not mentioned as the man of lies. Please show evidence of his violence. Feel free to quote the Talmud for evidence.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
Well, he did use Golden plates.


Why can't you defend your point?
I will leave it to the readers to determine if my point has been supported with evidence and reason (versus opinion alone).
But Paul said he was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee of Pharisees. Quite a boast from an apostate. Man of lies and lawlessness fits him perfectly. If you check Eusebius EH, you'll see the Jewish sects of the time saw Paul as an apostate and his writings worthless. They also saw Jesus as a mere human. Quite a cover-up by the Church today.
Irrelevant to the OP and opinion.

Shimon Ben Shetah is not mentioned as the man of lies. Please show evidence of his violence. Feel free to quote the Talmud for evidence.
A reference was provided (in post #22) from recognized scholars who already did the work requested. I don’t plan to do your homework for you when your comments reveal any lack of desire to know what history shows.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I will leave it to the readers to determine if my point has been supported with evidence and reason (versus opinion alone).
Ok.

Irrelevant to the OP and opinion.
Very applicable as your trying to prove the evidence of the legitimacy of a Jewish sect, and early church fathers show that the Jews of the 2nd temple didn't have their beliefs.

Also, Paul lied about his background, gave false teachings, in line with a man of lies and false teacher, man of lawlessness.

A reference was provided (in post #22) from recognized scholars who already did the work requested. I don’t plan to do your homework for you when your comments reveal any lack of desire to know what history shows.
Does FF Bruce provide proof for Shimon Ben Shetah being a man of lies? Hardly. Show evidence of this from the Talmud and you'll prove your case. I'll be waiting ;)

The worst thing to do is to quote a source without checking it as you've done.
 
Last edited:

sk0rpi0n

Member
Paul does not endorse anarchy, as you say.

Paul taught that the Law ended when Jesus came and also that Jesus himself ended the Law (Ephesians 2:14-15, Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:24-25). In teaching that the Law of God had come to an end, he was essentially preaching lawlessness, i.e., anarchy.

But the Hebrew scriptures say something else:


“…and all His commandments are trustworthy. They are forever true, to be obeyed faithfully and with integrity” (Psalms 111:7-8)
“All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal” (Psalms 119:160)


Paul also taught that a person cannot be justified or deemed righteous by keeping the Law of God (Galatians 3:11, Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:20).

But the Hebrew scriptures teach the exact opposite. It says men who keep the Law are righteous. (Ezekiel 18:9, Psalm 119:1, Deuteronomy 6:25)


not if led by the Holy Spirit. Not if led by the conscious formed by the Holy Spirit. The ideal or spiritual form of worship is a pious, virtuous soul which is open to anyone in any nation, male or female. In Christ all are equal. It is why the promise to Abraham is to many nations BEFORE the Mosaic Law or circumcision.

Paul taught that if one is led by the Holy spirit, he is not under the Law.

“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Galatians 5:18)

But the Hebrew scriptures teach the exact opposite. It says in Ezekiel 36:27 that having the Spirit moves people to follow the Law.

“And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws” (Ezekiel 36:27)

You say "The ONLY scriptures Paul had to work with were from the Hebrew scriptures", but Paul's own words and teachings reveal he was unaware of what the Hebrew scriptures taught about the Law. Either that, or he was deliberately distorting Hebrew scriptures.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Paul taught that the Law ended when Jesus came and also that Jesus himself ended the Law (Ephesians 2:14-15, Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:24-25). In teaching that the Law of God had come to an end, he was essentially preaching lawlessness, i.e., anarchy.

But the Hebrew scriptures say something else:


“…and all His commandments are trustworthy. They are forever true, to be obeyed faithfully and with integrity” (Psalms 111:7-8)
“All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal” (Psalms 119:160)


Paul also taught that a person cannot be justified or deemed righteous by keeping the Law of God (Galatians 3:11, Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:20).

But the Hebrew scriptures teach the exact opposite. It says men who keep the Law are righteous. (Ezekiel 18:9, Psalm 119:1, Deuteronomy 6:25)




Paul taught that if one is led by the Holy spirit, he is not under the Law.

“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Galatians 5:18)

But the Hebrew scriptures teach the exact opposite. It says in Ezekiel 36:27 that having the Spirit moves people to follow the Law.

“And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws” (Ezekiel 36:27)

You say "The ONLY scriptures Paul had to work with were from the Hebrew scriptures", but Paul's own words and teachings reveal he was unaware of what the Hebrew scriptures taught about the Law. Either that, or he was deliberately distorting Hebrew scriptures.
Paul was an apostate, no doubt.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Paul taught that the Law ended when Jesus came and also that Jesus himself ended the Law (Ephesians 2:14-15, Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:24-25). In teaching that the Law of God had come to an end, he was essentially preaching lawlessness, i.e., anarchy.

But the Hebrew scriptures say something else:


“…and all His commandments are trustworthy. They are forever true, to be obeyed faithfully and with integrity” (Psalms 111:7-8)
“All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal” (Psalms 119:160)


Paul also taught that a person cannot be justified or deemed righteous by keeping the Law of God (Galatians 3:11, Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:20).

But the Hebrew scriptures teach the exact opposite. It says men who keep the Law are righteous. (Ezekiel 18:9, Psalm 119:1, Deuteronomy 6:25)




Paul taught that if one is led by the Holy spirit, he is not under the Law.

“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Galatians 5:18)

But the Hebrew scriptures teach the exact opposite. It says in Ezekiel 36:27 that having the Spirit moves people to follow the Law.

“And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws” (Ezekiel 36:27)

You say "The ONLY scriptures Paul had to work with were from the Hebrew scriptures", but Paul's own words and teachings reveal he was unaware of what the Hebrew scriptures taught about the Law. Either that, or he was deliberately distorting Hebrew scriptures.
The Law teaches that from the very beginning of creation two powers were placed over two Adams. One power, namely, Jehova, rules the Adam formed of earth cursed by Jehova whereas the other power, namely, the holy spirit, rules the Adam who lives forever made in the image of the Holy Spirit.

What the TOR and Paul understood from that was no matter what a human does, he will die because Jehova has cursed the ground or earth which forms the body. IOW, Jehova is the god of THIS material world. It has been that way since the beginning even before the Mosaic Law, therefore the Mosaic Law changes nothing except to confirm the existence of our fallen material nature and condemn it.

We would be without hope except the Most High God sent another power, namely, the holy spirit, to create a second Adam who lives forever. The Holy Spirit forms a moral conscience in the second Adam. The second Adam is spiritual made in the image of the Holy Spirit, perfected, holy, and righteous.

The TOR and Paul understand that Jehova has no authority over the second Adam created by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit has no authority over the material body formed by Jehova. It is why good people still die because their material bodies are cursed by Jehova. But souls surrendered to the Holy Spirit, sealed to the Holy Spirit, married to the Holy Spirit, live forever because they belong to the second Adam.

Moreover, the Holy Spirit could care less if the mortal Adam removes his foreskin or what food he puts in his mouth or how far he walks on the sabbath because those purity requirements put in place by Jehova ONLY only apply to the material body. The Holy Spirit only cares about the inside of man, to perfect his conscience for doing right. It is why for the second Adam the whole Law can be summarized into one commandment, love your neighbor as yourself. It is why the eternal life given to second Adam is universally available irregardless of race, nationality, sex, or wealth. The moral conscious formed by the holy spirit is an absolute religion available to everyone. Jewish particularism provides no additional benefit.

This is what Paul was trying to demonstrate to the Jews and they were not having it and still do not get it. The only reason the Mosaic Law is considered holy by the TOR, the prophets, and Paul is for its allegorical meaning, its symbolism, its types, its figures, REVEALING the economy of salvation willed by the God Most High. Its literal meaning holds no efficacy for salvation. For example, the literal meaning of the creation myths is useless. But in the hands of a prophet, priest, or seer, it reveals the plan of the Most High God for humanity, for Adam.

So reconsider what Paul is saying in the quotes that you gave above in light of the two powers creating the two Adams in the beginning. Jehova‘s power and authority is limited to rule the mortal Adam, whereas, the Holy Spirit‘s power and authority is over the second or spiritual Adam who lives forever.

Which one would you rather be, the mortal Adam serving Jehova, or the spiritual Adam serving the Holy Spirit? Which Law would you rather keep, the literal, earthly meaning of the Law or its spiritual, allegorical, eternal meaning of the Law? Which covenant would you rather belong to, the Mosaic covenant by the letter written in stone, or the New covenant written on our hearts?

The Tor’s and Paul’s whole point was that as long as Jews remain focused on the outward requirements of the Law, eg., circumcision, food purity, sabbaths, etc., then they are missing the more important inner requirements of the Law, eg., a moral conscious, which is the ideal, spiritual worship of the Most High God.

One final note: The TOR did say it was beneficial to follow some requirements of the Mosaic Law, most likely for its symbolic meaning. He never says ritual purity is efficacious for salvation. Paul just takes his message to its logical conclusion, that for Gentiles, the only thing that actually matters is a moral conscious formed by the Holy Spirit, namely, the inner Yeshua.
 
Last edited:

sk0rpi0n

Member
The Law teaches that from the very beginning of creation two powers were placed over two Adams

I've never heard the doctrine/theory about "two powers" placed over "two Adams". Which chapter and verse of the Old Testament are you referring to??

The Bible's core teaching is very simple. It's main teaching is that there's the One God and there's the One God's creations (which includes the universe, angels, humans, animals, plants and so on). The One God is the only power. over all things.

It's that simple. Why do you want to complicate it with your ideas of "two Adams" and "two powers" and what not?

I don't recognize your ideas as being derived from the Bible. No offense, but it appears to me that you're stating your own theories.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I've never heard the doctrine/theory about "two powers" placed over "two Adams". Which chapter and verse of the Old Testament are you referring to??
It is the first five chapters of Genesis, you know, from the beginning of creation. The TOR expounds on it in the Dead Sea Scrolls (see post #2).
The Bible's core teaching is very simple. It's main teaching is that there's the One God and there's the One God's creations (which includes the universe, angels, humans, animals, plants and so on). The One God is the only power. over all things.
The “one true God and Father” is ”the El” or “the God Most High”. The El-ohim or gods come from him. He is the transcendent one manifest through his younger and elder sons. The younger son was found to be immoral, you know, fits of rage, jealous, wrathful, genocidal tendencies, etc., so he sends the elder son to bring order to the cosmos, starting with us as individuals, then ultimately a new world, a “new creation”.

The name given to the elder son is Yeshua (or salvation because the name is the will of the God Most high), according to the TYPE in Hebrew scriptures because he leads his “chosen ones” into the “promised land” (see Book of Jubilees). This is how the Hebrew scriptures are holy and eternal to those who receive the REVEALED meaning. This point is reiterated over and over by the TOR, for he came to REVEAL the Law for its celestial meaning.

It's that simple. Why do you want to complicate it with your ideas of "two Adams" and "two powers" and what not?
So that we might know (Greek: gnosis) the will of the God Most High, who the TOR also calls “the God of Knowledge.”

I don't recognize your ideas as being derived from the Bible. No offense, but it appears to me that you're stating your own theories.
The TOR founded “The Way” on his interpretations of the Law. From his interpretations he could see the coming of two more Messiahs besides himself. Paul then takes the TOR’s message to the nations which changes the world: “a light to the nations”, to include the Jewish nation. But Paul predicts the coming Messiah one last time to consummate the age. These arguably are the “two anointed ones” changing the world through the precepts and form of Messianic Judaism founded by the TOR. What more evidence does one need of their authority given that their message of Glad Tidings has changed the world?

While everyone is looking for the supernatural and miraculous (arguably an idolatrous generation seeking signs) the Most High God has been accomplishing what he set out to do, right in front of us, naturally, as its historical fact, but few perceive it.
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
The Law teaches that from the very beginning of creation two powers were placed over two Adams. One power, namely, Jehova, rules the Adam formed of earth cursed by Jehova whereas the other power, namely, the holy spirit, rules the Adam who lives forever made in the image of the Holy Spirit.
This is a false teaching. Where does the law, Torah, teach two Gods?

What the TOR and Paul understood from that was no matter what a human does, he will die because Jehova has cursed the ground or earth which forms the body. IOW, Jehova is the god of THIS material world. It has been that way since the beginning even before the Mosaic Law, therefore the Mosaic Law changes nothing except to confirm the existence of our fallen material nature and condemn it.

We would be without hope except the Most High God sent another power, namely, the holy spirit, to create a second Adam who lives forever. The Holy Spirit forms a moral conscience in the second Adam. The second Adam is spiritual made in the image of the Holy Spirit, perfected, holy, and righteous.

The TOR and Paul understand that Jehova has no authority over the second Adam created by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit has no authority over the material body formed by Jehova. It is why good people still die because their material bodies are cursed by Jehova. But souls surrendered to the Holy Spirit, sealed to the Holy Spirit, married to the Holy Spirit, live forever because they belong to the second Adam.

Moreover, the Holy Spirit could care less if the mortal Adam removes his foreskin or what food he puts in his mouth or how far he walks on the sabbath because those purity requirements put in place by Jehova ONLY only apply to the material body. The Holy Spirit only cares about the inside of man, to perfect his conscience for doing right. It is why for the second Adam the whole Law can be summarized into one commandment, love your neighbor as yourself. It is why the eternal life given to second Adam is universally available irregardless of race, nationality, sex, or wealth. The moral conscious formed by the holy spirit is an absolute religion available to everyone. Jewish particularism provides no additional benefit.

This is what Paul was trying to demonstrate to the Jews and they were not having it and still do not get it. The only reason the Mosaic Law is considered holy by the TOR, the prophets, and Paul is for its allegorical meaning, its symbolism, its types, its figures, REVEALING the economy of salvation willed by the God Most High. Its literal meaning holds no efficacy for salvation. For example, the literal meaning of the creation myths is useless. But in the hands of a prophet, priest, or seer, it reveals the plan of the Most High God for humanity, for Adam.

So reconsider what Paul is saying in the quotes that you gave above in light of the two powers creating the two Adams in the beginning. Jehova‘s power and authority is limited to rule the mortal Adam, whereas, the Holy Spirit‘s power and authority is over the second or spiritual Adam who lives forever.

Which one would you rather be, the mortal Adam serving Jehova, or the spiritual Adam serving the Holy Spirit? Which Law would you rather keep, the literal, earthly meaning of the Law or its spiritual, allegorical, eternal meaning of the Law? Which covenant would you rather belong to, the Mosaic covenant by the letter written in stone, or the New covenant written on our hearts?

The Tor’s and Paul’s whole point was that as long as Jews remain focused on the outward requirements of the Law, eg., circumcision, food purity, sabbaths, etc., then they are missing the more important inner requirements of the Law, eg., a moral conscious, which is the ideal, spiritual worship of the Most High God.

One final note: The TOR did say it was beneficial to follow some requirements of the Mosaic Law, most likely for its symbolic meaning. He never says ritual purity is efficacious for salvation. Paul just takes his message to its logical conclusion, that for Gentiles, the only thing that actually matters is a moral conscious formed by the Holy Spirit, namely, the inner Yeshua.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
This is a false teaching. Where does the law, Torah, teach two Gods?
It actually teaches a Divine Trinity: 1) "the El", 2) "Ruach Elohim", and 3) "YHWH Elohim".

Because "the Most High God", aka, "the El", is transcendent, the only way that he can be known is through his two "potencies" or "powers", the "Ruach Elohim" and the "YHWH Elohim". The former represents the incorporal, intelligent, spiritual world, whereas, the latter represents the corporal, material, or sensible world.

Since I have already discussed the TOR and Paul's perspective on the TWO powers coming from the Most High God, let me bring in an independent, third, perspective who was well known among the Jews in the first century C.E., namely, Philo of Alexandria. Philo, allegorizing Gen 18:2 describes Abraham's "spiritual eyes"** perceiving God as the following:

"When [the Most High] God, accompanied by his two highest potencies, Dominion and Goodness, making One [with Himself] in the midst, produces in the seeing soul a triple presentation, of which ["three persons", see Gen. 18:2] each transcends all measure; for God transcendeth all delineation, and equally transcendent are his Potencies, but He [Himself] doth measure all.

Accordingly, His Goodness is the measure of things good, and His Dominion is the measure of things subject, while He Himself is chief of all, both corporal and incorporal.

Wherefore also these Potencies, receiving the Reason (Logos) of His rules and ordinances, measure out all things below them. And therefore, it is right that these THREE measures should, as it were, be mingled and blended together in the soul, in order that, being persuaded that He is Highest God, who transcendeth His potencies, both making Himself manifest without them, and also causing Himself to be seen in them, it [the soul] may receive His impressions, and powers, and blessings, and so become initiate into the perfect SECRETS, may not lightly disclose the divine Mysteries, but, treasuring them up, and keeping sure silence, guard them in secret.

For it is written: "Make [them] secret"-- for the sacred sermon of initiation about the ingenerable [the God Most High] and about His Potencies ought to be kept secret, since it is not within the power of every man to guard the sacred trust of the divine revelations."

(Mead, Thrice-Greatest Hermes, Vol 1, pg. 149)

Who can not perceive that the TOR, Philo, and Paul are describing the same two "powers" or "potencies" which "measure out all things below them" as coming from "the Most High God" who transcends everything, to include his two potencies or powers? For convenience, I summarized the order of the divine economy as the following:

1) The Most High God, or "the El"
2) YHWH Elohim and Ruach Elohim = Two Potencies or Powers
3) Corporal and Spiritual Adam = All of humanity

----
** "Now the power of sight of the souls of the many and unrighteous is ever shut in, since it lies dead in deep sleep, and can never respond and be made awake to the things of nature and the TYPES and IDEAS within her. But the spiritual eyes of the WISE man are awake, and behold them; nay, they are sleeplessly alert, ever watchful from desire of seeing." (Philo)
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
It actually teaches a Divine Trinity: 1) "the El", 2) "Ruach Elohim", and 3) "YHWH Elohim".
It actually doesn't. Wow, you're a polytheist as well.

But it doesn't surprise me because that's the basics of gnosticsm, right docphin5?

Because "the Most High God", aka, "the El", is transcendent, the only way that he can be known is through his two "potencies" or "powers", the "Ruach Elohim" and the "YHWH Elohim". The former represents the incorporal, intelligent, spiritual world, whereas, the latter represents the corporal, material, or sensible world.

Since I have already discussed the TOR and Paul's perspective on the TWO powers coming from the Most High God, let me bring in an independent, third, perspective who was well known among the Jews in the first century C.E., namely, Philo of Alexandria. Philo, allegorizing Gen 18:2 describes Abraham's "spiritual eyes"** perceiving God as the following:

"When [the Most High] God, accompanied by his two highest potencies, Dominion and Goodness, making One [with Himself] in the midst, produces in the seeing soul a triple presentation, of which ["three persons", see Gen. 18:2] each transcends all measure; for God transcendeth all delineation, and equally transcendent are his Potencies, but He [Himself] doth measure all.

Accordingly, His Goodness is the measure of things good, and His Dominion is the measure of things subject, while He Himself is chief of all, both corporal and incorporal.

Wherefore also these Potencies, receiving the Reason (Logos) of His rules and ordinances, measure out all things below them. And therefore, it is right that these THREE measures should, as it were, be mingled and blended together in the soul, in order that, being persuaded that He is Highest God, who transcendeth His potencies, both making Himself manifest without them, and also causing Himself to be seen in them, it [the soul] may receive His impressions, and powers, and blessings, and so become initiate into the perfect SECRETS, may not lightly disclose the divine Mysteries, but, treasuring them up, and keeping sure silence, guard them in secret.

For it is written: "Make [them] secret"-- for the sacred sermon of initiation about the ingenerable [the God Most High] and about His Potencies ought to be kept secret, since it is not within the power of every man to guard the sacred trust of the divine revelations."

(Mead, Thrice-Greatest Hermes, Vol 1, pg. 149)

Who can not perceive that the TOR, Philo, and Paul are describing the same two "powers" or "potencies" which "measure out all things below them" as coming from "the Most High God" who transcends everything, to include his two potencies or powers? For convenience, I summarized the order of the divine economy as the following:

1) The Most High God, or "the El"
2) YHWH Elohim and Ruach Elohim = Two Potencies or Powers
3) Corporal and Spiritual Adam = All of humanity

----
** "Now the power of sight of the souls of the many and unrighteous is ever shut in, since it lies dead in deep sleep, and can never respond and be made awake to the things of nature and the TYPES and IDEAS within her. But the spiritual eyes of the WISE man are awake, and behold them; nay, they are sleeplessly alert, ever watchful from desire of seeing." (Philo)
 

docphin5

Well-known member
It actually doesn't. Wow, you're a polytheist as well.

But it doesn't surprise me because that's the basics of gnosticsm, right docphin5?
Not at all. Check this out, it demonstrates how "all things" are One thing IN the God Most High.

1) Transcendent One = Source of "all things"
2) corporal/incorporal (intelligible) worlds = "all things"
3) corporal/incorporal Adam or humanity

the God Most Highthe God Most Highthe God Most Highthe God Most Highthe God Most High
the God Most HighRuach/YHWH ElohimRuach/YHWH ElohimRuach/YHWH Elohimthe God Most High
the God Most HighRuach/YHWH ElohimHumanityRuach/YHWH Elohimthe God Most High
the God Most HighRuach/YHWH ElohimRuach/YHWH ElohimRuach/YHWH Elohimthe God Most High
the God Most Highthe God Most Highthe God Most Highthe God Most Highthe God Most High
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Not at all. Check this out, it demonstrates how "all things" are One thing IN the God Most High.

1) Transcendent One = Source of "all things"
2) corporal/incorporal (intelligible) worlds = "all things"
3) corporal/incorporal Adam or humanity

the God Most Highthe God Most Highthe God Most Highthe God Most Highthe God Most High
the God Most HighRuach/YHWH ElohimRuach/YHWH ElohimRuach/YHWH Elohimthe God Most High
the God Most HighRuach/YHWH ElohimHumanityRuach/YHWH Elohimthe God Most High
the God Most HighRuach/YHWH ElohimRuach/YHWH ElohimRuach/YHWH Elohimthe God Most High
the God Most Highthe God Most Highthe God Most Highthe God Most Highthe God Most High
So, you're using a gnostic chart?
 

docphin5

Well-known member
So, you're using a gnostic chart?
I see what you are trying to do. You want to attach the word "gnostic" to anything you disagree with, to include a simple table, because to many "gnostic" is a buzz word for something bad, a perjorative, like "heresy". If you can label an idea as bad before anyone considers it then it doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not or is supported by reason or evidence. It just shows that you are more interested in the party line than in truth, and you are reacting rather than understanding.

Let me make this easy for you: you can choose to ignore what conflicts with what you have already chosen to believe. My goal here is to provide alternative explanations to current understanding based on actual evidence, reason, and historical documents. You are free to ignore them in preference for what you imagine to be true.
 

sk0rpi0n

Member
It is the first five chapters of Genesis, you know, from the beginning of creation. The TOR expounds on it in the Dead Sea Scrolls (see post #2).

the first 5 chapters is a LARGE body of text. Can you point me to the exact chapter or verse that supports the idea of "two powers" placed over "two Adams". I think you're interpreting the first 5 chapters of Genesis to derive that idea.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
the first 5 chapters is a LARGE body of text. Can you point me to the exact chapter or verse that supports the idea of "two powers" placed over "two Adams". I think you're interpreting the first 5 chapters of Genesis to derive that idea.
I assumed that you were aware of the two creations in Genesis which are commonly known.
From Wikipedia
"The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity. The narrative is made up of two stories, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis."

Two Stories, Creations, Powers, Potencies, and Adams
1) Genesis 1:1-2:3. Ruach Elohim >>>>> second (immortal, spiritual, incorporal) Adam
2) Genesis 2:4 -5. YHWH Elohim >>>>> first (mortal, earthly, corporal) Adam

"The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven." (1 cor 15)
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I see what you are trying to do. You want to attach the word "gnostic" to anything you disagree with, to include a simple table, because to many "gnostic" is a buzz word for something bad, a perjorative, like "heresy". If you can label an idea as bad before anyone considers it then it doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not or is supported by reason or evidence. It just shows that you are more interested in the party line than in truth, and you are reacting rather than understanding.

Let me make this easy for you: you can choose to ignore what conflicts with what you have already chosen to believe. My goal here is to provide alternative explanations to current understanding based on actual evidence, reason, and historical documents. You are free to ignore them in preference for what you imagine to be true.
Talking about 3 gods and simultaneously saying you believe in one is ridiculous, don't you think? Torah and Tanakh warn against the belief in more than one God and others besides or instead of Him, but yet you want to buy into the heresy pushed by gnostics, essenes, etc., where ever you get this idea from.

Of course this idea is heresy.

BTW, you do understand that in Hebrew, ruach elo-him, is not a separate person or being, but just the will or desire of God? It is correctly translated as spirit of God, not God the spirit. So, you're a bit mixed-up with this notion where ever you got it from.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
Talking about 3 gods and simultaneously saying you believe in one is ridiculous, don't you think? Torah and Tanakh warn against the belief in more than one God and others besides or instead of Him, but yet you want to buy into the heresy pushed by gnostics, essenes, etc., where ever you get this idea from.

Of course this idea is heresy.
For who in the skies compares to Yahweh,
who can be likened to Yahweh among the sons of Gods (bênê Ēlîm).
(Psalm 89:6)

From Wikipedia
It is possible also that the expression ’ēlîm in both places descends from an archaic stock phrase in which ’lm was a singular form with the m-enclitic and therefore to be translated as 'sons of Ēl'. The m-enclitic appears elsewhere in the Tanakh and in other Semitic languages. Its meaning is unknown, possibly simply emphasis. It appears in similar contexts in Ugaritic texts where the expression bn ’il alternates with bn ’ilm, but both must mean 'sons of Ēl'.
------------------
I said, “You are elohim (“gods”), sons of the el*yown (“Most High”), all of you; (Psalm 82:6)
 
Last edited:
Top